5 ms·

I noticed you countered by using 'cooperation', a word found nowhere in my above comment. I do not think this is an accident, and calling me to have it 'in the

I noticed you countered by using 'cooperation', a word found nowhere in my above comment. I do not think this is an accident, and calling me to have it 'in the reverse' of a word I never said is no doubt a deliberate and misleading framing on your part, although I admit it is rather clever

Baeocystin 4y ago
? I used cooperation as a synonym for sharing the bounty, which is think is perfectly reasonable. Please assume good faith in discussions here. HN is run differently than most internet fora.
- notch656a 4y ago
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    Notch, accusing someone of "deliberate and misleading framing" arguments because they didn't use the exact, precise language that you did is assuming bad faith. Your argument is weak, obtuse and unproductive. He clearly explained why you're wrong by explaining a culture he was deeply familiar with, and your response is a faux-intellectual straw man. If you can't deal with the fact that you're not the suppository of all wisdom, please get off HN and go outside.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Clearly my argument 'one possible explanation of why poor communities would disproportionately exhibit that behavior' is weak and one saying literally 'other behaviors at that income level are incompatible with life' is not? I've merely made a conjecture, I find it extremely weak, obtuse, and unproductive to just say welp 'incompatible with life' as if that is that. My argument was a mere possibility. The counter argument was a factual statement about literal 'incompatible with life.' The latter is much stronger, in fact my counterparty made a statement much more closer to how one who believes they are the suppository of all wisdom would behave. Going back and phrasing this as "sharing any bounty" being synonymous with "cooperation", and then using cooperation in connection with saying I got it in reverse, is about as bad faith as it gets.
      - AussieWog93 4y ago
        Why are you even still arguing about this? You've already demonstrated that you don't know how to play the "spirited debate" game with other people, and for that reason nobody wants to play it with you. If you want to get the last word in so you feel like you've "won", go ahead. I'll quiver before your superior and enlightened intellect.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - leephillips 4y ago
      I think I prefer the method used in The Matrix.

Baeocystin 4y ago

? I used cooperation as a synonym for sharing the bounty, which is think is perfectly reasonable. Please assume good faith in discussions here. HN is run differently than most internet fora.

notch656a 4y ago
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  Notch, accusing someone of "deliberate and misleading framing" arguments because they didn't use the exact, precise language that you did is assuming bad faith. Your argument is weak, obtuse and unproductive. He clearly explained why you're wrong by explaining a culture he was deeply familiar with, and your response is a faux-intellectual straw man. If you can't deal with the fact that you're not the suppository of all wisdom, please get off HN and go outside.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Clearly my argument 'one possible explanation of why poor communities would disproportionately exhibit that behavior' is weak and one saying literally 'other behaviors at that income level are incompatible with life' is not? I've merely made a conjecture, I find it extremely weak, obtuse, and unproductive to just say welp 'incompatible with life' as if that is that. My argument was a mere possibility. The counter argument was a factual statement about literal 'incompatible with life.' The latter is much stronger, in fact my counterparty made a statement much more closer to how one who believes they are the suppository of all wisdom would behave. Going back and phrasing this as "sharing any bounty" being synonymous with "cooperation", and then using cooperation in connection with saying I got it in reverse, is about as bad faith as it gets.
    - AussieWog93 4y ago
      Why are you even still arguing about this? You've already demonstrated that you don't know how to play the "spirited debate" game with other people, and for that reason nobody wants to play it with you. If you want to get the last word in so you feel like you've "won", go ahead. I'll quiver before your superior and enlightened intellect.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - leephillips 4y ago
    I think I prefer the method used in The Matrix.